The trees were felled four months ago in compartment number 132 by a Arvi-based contractor at the behest of Wadhamneri farmer Naresh Sonune, but the matter came to light during inspection by chief conservator of forests (CCF) for Working Plan, Nagpur, recently.

On September 11, TK Choubey, CCF (Working Plan), Nagpur, submitted a report to SH Patil, CCF (Nagpur Circle), pointing out that three boundary pillars were shifted from their original position and there were no hammer marks on the felled trees. This indicates that connivance of forest staff with culprits cannot be ruled out.

Being sold at a market price of Rs 50,000-70,000 per cubic metre, teak is the most sought-after forest produce.

According to official sources, on May 17, 2012, Sonune had sought permission from range forest officer (RFO) Vijay Talnikar, who is also the tree officer, to fell 102 trees in his farm.

As tree felling is not allowed during monsoon, a survey was conducted by round officer (RO) in October. Raising doubts, the RO asked Sonune to do a survey of his area from taluka land record (TLR). The survey was done on January 19, 2013. However, the RO objected to the TLR survey and reported about it to Talnikar.

Since the forest boundary overlapped Sonune's farm, Talnikar sought permission to conduct a forest survey on May 10, 2013 to finalize boundaries of compartment number 132.

However, even as the matter was disputed, Sonune felled the trees claiming that they came under his area as per the TLR survey conducted in January.

Forest officials did not register any offence against him as they did not have any record of their boundaries.

Talnikar says according to previous records, the farmer owned 4.40 hectare land but after bifurcation of survey numbers, his farm area went up to 4.78 hectares.

"I've sought a reply from TLR about how Sonune's farm area increased. It may be possible that felling must have been done in the excess area," Talnikar told TOI.

Although further felling has been stopped and material has been seized, the damage has already been done. After the violations was reported, CCF Patil asked DFO (planning) SK Thapliyal to probe the matter. He has already submitted a report.

"Prima facie it looks the trees were felled in forest area. The range officials erred by not registering an offence for the past four months. The farmer and the contractor could have been booked under the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, even if the forest boundary is not fixed," said officials.

Talnikar too agrees that an offence should have been registered immediately in this case, but due to non-availability of forest records it was not done. He also agreed that two reserve forest boundary pillars seem to be tampered with.